NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1965 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5386 of 2010)

Ram Ratan                                                 ….Appellant

Versus

State of Rajasthan                            ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

AFTAB ALAM, J.  

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated August  

27, 2009 passed by a learned single judge of the Rajasthan High Court in the  

appellant’s appeal (Criminal Appeal No.1139 of 2006) from the judgment  

and order of conviction and sentence passed against him by the trial court.  

4. The Special Court, Kota, specified under the Scheduled Castes and the  

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, by its judgment and  

order dated October 16, 2006 in Sessions Case no.89 of 2006, convicted the  

appellant under sections 307, 326 and 324 of the Penal Code and sentenced

him to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.500 (in default 1  

month’s simple imprisonment) under section 307, imprisonment for 5 years  

and  a  fine  of  Rs.500  (in  default  1  month’s  simple  imprisonment)  under  

section 326 and imprisonment for one year under section 324 of the Penal  

Code.  All the sentences were to run concurrently.  

5. The High Court disposed of the appeal by a brief order that runs into  

no more than four pages and a few lines in the paper book. On the first half  

page  the  High  Court  stated  the  sections  under  which  the  appellant  was  

convicted  and the  sentences  awarded  to  him for  the  respective  offences.  

Next, it very briefly stated about the prosecution case and the charge sheet  

submitted  by  the  police.  It  then,  restated  the  sections  under  which  the  

appellant  was convicted and the respective sentences given to him under  

those sections by the trial court. In the next paragraph, it vaguely stated the  

submissions  made  by the  counsel  for  the  appellant  and in  the  two lines  

thereafter, the submissions made by the public prosecutor. Then comes the  

consideration of the matter by the court, which is as under all of six lines:

“I, after hearing the arguments of Learned Advocates of both  the sides and perusing the facts and circumstances of this case,  while confirming the order of conviction of the appellant and  while keeping in the view the facts that this is his first offence  and that he is not habitual offender, I think it justified to order 6  years’  rigorous  imprisonment  in  place  of  7  years’  rigorous  imprisonment  while  maintaining  rest  of  the  judgment  as  it  was.”

2

6. After the above, the judgment concludes with the direction to the jail  

officials that the appellant should be given the benefit of section 432 of the  

Code keeping in view his conduct in the jail.

7. We  feel  sorry  in  reminding  the  High  Court  that  an  appeal  under  

section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code is both on facts and law, and the  

High Court hearing the appeal is the last court of facts. To put it mildly, the  

High Court was rather cavalier in disposing of the appellant’s appeal in the  

manner as seen above.  

8. We may note here that even though no appeal against the High Court  

judgment is preferred by the State, Mr. Irshad Ahmad, counsel appearing for  

the State of Rajasthan was equally critical of the way the High Court did not  

take into account the material evidences against the appellant.  

9. For the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to interfere in the matter.  

The order of the High Court is set aside and the appellant’s appeal before the  

High Court (single judge Criminal Appeal no.1139 of 2006) is restored to its  

file for a fresh hearing and decision in accordance with law.  

10. It  is  hoped and expected that  the High Court  will  finally  hear  and  

dispose of the appeal without any undue delay and preferably by the end of  

this year. In case for any reason, the appeal is not disposed of by the end of  

3

the year, it will be open to the appellant to make a prayer for bail before the  

High Court.  

11. In the result the appeal is allowed but with no order as to costs.

……………………………..J (AFTAB ALAM)  

………………………………J (R.M. LODHA)   

New Delhi, October  8, 2010

4